Showing posts with label celebrity casting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celebrity casting. Show all posts

Friday, August 28, 2020

Kelly Marie Tran To Voice Raya in _Raya and the Last Dragon_

 

Woke up to this news this morning:

Star Wars star Kelly Marie Tran is voicing the main character in Disney’s newest animated film, “Raya and the Last Dragon”

Posted by Variety on Thursday, August 27, 2020


 And honestly? I am here for it. 👏 👏 👏

While I'm not the biggest Star Wars fan, I did really enjoy Tran's role in Rian Johnson's Episode VIII; to see her "more than sidelined," to use Julia Alexander's words, in Episode IX, was more than disappointing. 

But what's interesting to me is that this film, despite the plot summary, is being billed (and marketed, I'm sure) as a princess film

Let's take a look at the plot summary from IMDB: 

"In a realm known as Lumandra, a re-imagined Earth inhabited by an ancient civilization, a warrior named Raya is determined to find the last dragon." 

And from Wikipedia:

  "A lone warrior sets out to find the last dragon in existence and save the kingdom of Kumandra from the villainous Drunn." 

With the exception of Mulan, and *maybe* Moana, Disney movies don't usually focus on warriors. That is, typically, Disney Animations studios films skew female-centric, with the Disney Princess, Disney Fairies and Frozen franchises anchoring the studio. Pixar, on the other hand, skews predominantly male. While there are exceptions to both of course (e.g., The Lion King for Disney; Brave and Inside Out for Pixar), the generalizations hold true. 

And, for better or for worse (and people love to point out the "worse"), Disney princess movies are a staple of American childhood and culture. So it's interesting to me that Raya and the Last Dragon is being billed as a princess movie. 

Look at this post from The Mary Sue, for example: 


Get money!

Posted by The Mary Sue on Thursday, August 27, 2020

This movie, then, has the potential to be groundbreaking for Disney. Awkwafina, who will co-start with Tran, has already praised the movie's "sisterhood":


 


Two things to note:
(1) the clip features Cassie Steele, a British-Filipino actress who was originally cast in the role -- wonder what happened there? and

(2) sisterhood, on the heels of Frozen, is nothing new for Disney. It's worth pointing out that of 14 (un)official princesses -- only four of them have biological siblings (Ariel, Merida, and Anna & Elsa)  and only three of them have sisters (Merida has brothers). The only film where sisterhood features a significant role is, of course, Frozen, as Ariel's sisters are largely irrelevant to the plot. And even in Frozen, Anna was intended to be the lead, with Elsa originally slated for the villain role. Jennifer Lee, thankfully, updated that narrative, and we have the two empowered characters we know and love today. 

And while I don't think that Raya and Sisu are biological sisters (plot twist?!), this might actually be *more* important -- because Disney Princesses don't really get "friends." Sure, they get animal sidekicks and they may even get magical helpers, but not *real* friends. The only two princesses who have female friends are Pocahontas (Nakoma) and Tiana (Charlotte) and I would argue that only Tiana and Charlotte are *real* friends (Nakoma is largely a plot device), however historically unlikely their friendship would be. 

So if this film deliberately features two female leads (as opposed to an accidental female lead with Elsa), who aren't biologically related, and focuses on their friendship/dynamic and both of them are Asian women? Like I said -- groundbreaking. 

But here's where it gets a bit tricky for me...in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Kelly Marie Tran revealed, 

"She is someone who is technically a princess, but I think that what's really cool about this project, about this character specifically, is that everyone's trying to flip the narrative on what it means to be a princess...Raya is totally a warrior. When she was a kid, she was excited to get her sword. And she grows up to be a really badass, gritty warrior and can really take care of herself."

Okay, what's the problem? How could this be anything less than great? 

Fair question. I agree -- Tran's points about Disney trying to "flip the narrative on what it means to be a princess" is important -- and definitely in line with their recent marketing campaigns for the Princess franchise. And trust me -- I am all for strong, empowered, warrior characters.

My concern is that Disney has a tendency to Otherize its Princesses of Color -- to mark them as different from the typical white, European Princesses in significant ways. As early as 2004, Celeste Lacroix was pointing out that Disney's non-white heroines -- Pocahontas, Esmeralda, and, to some extent, Jasmine. Lacroix's point is that the non-White Princesses are often more sexualized and more associated with nature than the White Princesses, reinforcing the normative superiority of Whites. That is -- non-white Princesses don't get to just be princesses: they don't get to wear floofy ballgowns and have servants.

We can see this trend continue in the films that were released even after Lacroix's publication: Rapunzel, Merida, and Anna & Elsa, while all more active and empowered women, still wear ballgowns and live in castles. While Tiana and Moana may not be hypersexualized, they are definitely associated with Nature (Tiana turns into a frog and spends a good deal of time in the Louisiana bayou, and Moana is chosen by the Ocean to restore the heart of Te Fiti and give new life to a barren lava field) and don't wear ballgowns or live in castles. 

Raya, it seems, would continue this disparity: I'm guessing she won't be wearing a ballgown as a warrior or living in a castle, as Entertainment Weekly also reveals that "Raya (voiced by Tran) is the daughter of the Chief of the Heart Lands, one of the five lands in the fictional kingdom of Kumandra. Years ago, dragons and humans lived in harmony, until monsters known as Druun invaded, forcing the dragons to sacrifice themselves and save humanity. Raya's father was also killed, and the film follows her journey as a warrior to find the last dragon, who she believes can save Kumandra." 

This is where it gets tricky: on the one hand, I'm definitely not advocating that we continue telling solely European fairy tales, and the fact that this is a story deeply rooted in Southeast Asian culture is so very important. I'm also not saying that we should impose cultural inaccuracies as an empty gesture just for the sake of "equality." That is, we shouldn't impose castles and ballgowns and pretty passive princesses on a culture where castles and ballgowns simply don't exist. And I'm also not necessarily advocating for a return to pretty princess stories. 

But I would maybe like to see some blurring of the boundaries: a White warrior Princess in the vein of Mulan and Moana and a Non-White Princess who does live in a castle and maybe doesn't wear ballgowns, but is unabashedly royal. And those Princesses of Color don't necessarily have to represent a real culture: while Pocahontas and Mulan are based on real people/people of legend, and Moana seeks to explain The Long Pause in Polynesian culture, Jasmine's Agrabah is fictional (sort of) as is Naveen's Maldonia. 

Disney can create fictional worlds which can be ruled by characters of any color -- which I think I would like to see a bit more of. Maybe it would raise questions I haven't yet thought of...

The bottom line is that I'm still really excited about this movie, and I'm probably even more excited about Kelly Marie Tran's starring role. After all the hate and vitriol she received from toxic Star Wars fans, she's deserves a bit of pixie dust. 

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Jude Law To Play Captain Hook?

*sigh*

How many film adaptations have there been of Peter Pan at this point?



Like, I get it, Disney. You're remaking everything. But Peter Pan, more than any other Disney film has just been done before...so. many. times. And it's really hard to (1) do something different -- like Hook, which I don't care how it did at the box office, is an absolute treasure and (2) to be faithful to Barrie's original script/vision for the story. Because then Hook would have to be quasi sympathetic (not an out-and-out villain), and Peter would have to be a bit evil, since Barrie's point was that children can be callous and cruel and selfish. 

So...yeah. Variety didn't offer many details on the plot/story, or even if Jude Law would also be playing Mr. Darling -- which if he isn't, is a travesty. 

Also...I feel like Jude Law is just casting Jason Isaacs 2.0?

via StoryWarren*

Like, doesn't Isaacs-as-Mr.-Darling look like Jude Law?! I haven't seen the 2003 version of Peter Pan in a while, but I remember really enjoying it...

*Sidebar: If you visit the link for the photo credit, the author, Helena Sorenson, seems blown away that the producers decided to cast Jason Isaacs as both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook, like it was some amazingly inventive idea. Which....Nope. (She also reduces Peter Pan to a story about "the wonder of childhood and the bittersweet beauty of growing up" so...) There's been some debate over the deeper meaning behind the dual-casting, but Peter Pan was originally a stage play, with Gerald du Maurier (uncle to the boys who partly inspired Peter Pan) playing both roles. On the one hand, this was purely for financial reasons -- pay one actor to play both parts -- but it also works like the dual casting in Hamilton. Daveed Diggs plays both LaFayette and Jefferson because (1) they're not on stage at the same time; and (2) the audience has already established a connection with the actor. It might be more akin to Anthony Ramos playing both John Laurens and Philip Hamilton, as the audience is already mourning Laurens at the end of Act I, and that connection spills over (given Philip's ultimate fate).
But on the other hand: Peter Pan is inherently about growing up -- specifically Peter's fear of growing up and being a "man" -- and both Mr. Darling and Hook represent the exact type of adult Peter fears growing into: ineffectual and dishonorable. Whether Barrie realized that or whether it was a subconscious, Freudian decision isn't fully clear...

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Little Mermaid Musings: Casting Possibilities

On the way home from the lake the other day, my husband and I were talking about Aladdin (yes, again). And one of the things we were focusing on was the criticism that Disney didn't do enough with the live-action version.

This is something I struggle with with retellings in general. But I suppose that's the thing, isn't it? Disney isn't really "re-telling" the story -- at least not in the sense that Gail Carson Levine was retelling "Cinderella" with Ella Enchanted or Susannah Grant and Andy Tennant did with Ever After (these two are generally highly regarded when it comes to retelling a classic fairy tale. There are, of course, numerous others, but these are two of my personal favorites.). What Disney is doing is re-making their beloved animated films and occasionally updating them. The closet they've come to retelling is Maleficent, since there's really not much there in the original animated film and Maleficent is, arguably, the most dynamic part of that film. (For the record, I hate the way Linda Woolverton & Co. transformed the Good Fairies, as Merrywether is my icon.)

BUT ANYWAY.

The point is, I think expecting Disney to radically change the fundamental story is setting yourself up for disappointment. This was never going to be Jasmine's story, because the story is, after all, called "Aladdin."

That being said, I do think there are opportunities to do something new and different, without fundamentally changing the narrative of the story.

Case in point: The Little Mermaid live-action film. Y'all know how much I LOVE this film and don't care what the prevailing academic argument about this is a horrible story for feminists because she gives up her voice yada yada yada. Production for the film is rumored to begin sometime in 2020, probably because Lin-Manuel Miranda is a very busy man. BUT. He is on-board:
And leaving aside all of LiLo's pleas to be cast as Ariel (NO, DISNEY. JUST NO -- which, to be honest, I don't think would every happen, as Disney is probably well aware of LiLo's career after she jumped the good ship Disney Channel Child Star) -- I think Disney could be radical and different with this film, simply by diversifying the cast.

Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" holds a unique position in fairy-tale-lore, since it is, to the best of my knowledge, an original story written by Andersen in 1837. (Unlike, say, "Cinderella," which has an analogue in most cultures around the world.) So, yes. While Andersen's authorship firmly locates the tale in the European (re: white) tradition, it's also about mermaids. So we're not bound by any "scientific" rules here or anything, since, you know, mermaids aren't real. (Whatever some people might think.)

Zendaya has long been the rumored favorite for the role, although nothing has been confirmed. I've seen a lot of clamor for Lea Michele to play the part, especially after her performance at the Hollywood Bowl recently:


You're welcome. 
And I've always been a fan, but girl should be busy with rehearsals for Wicked, because if she isn't cast as Elphaba in that remake, then I want nothing to do with it. 
As should Dove Cameron who, despite the 10-year-age-gap between her and Michele is one of my picks to play Galinda -- which is still relevant, because my husband thought Dove Cameron would make a good choice for Ariel as well. 

BUT. After watching The Greatest Showman -- because I aged out of Disney Channel before her show Shake It Up aired -- I'm a fan. And totally support this casting choice. 

So that got our drive-home-discussion going: if Zendaya is cast as Ariel, and if LMM brings some of his race-swapping Hamilton magic to the film...well. This could be the statement piece for Disney that so many wanted Aladdin to be

We decided LMM would make a great Grimsby -- we could age him down from the fuddy-duddy butler he is in the animated film to more of best-friend-advisor -- and we know he can rock that period-piece-ponytail:


For King Triton -- we'd cast The Rock. We first thought of Jason Momoa, but that's a little on-the-nose given that he was just Aquaman. But the more we thought about it, the more we were on board, because (1) he is the model for fatherhood we need these days -- and with three daughters, he could easily channel that into the role since Ariel has 6 sisters; and (2) Triton was always weirdly buff for a dude with a white beard, and Disney could save on their CGI budget by casting The Rock.
Edit: After some thought, I might be okay with Terry Crews as King Triton. Can he sing? Broadway Triton sings, I think...

We agreed that Tituss Burgess should have a role somewhere -- casting him as Sebastian is also a little on-the-nose since he originated the role on Broadway, but I'd like to see him as Ursula. This is the potentially most subversive -- and thus the potentially most important -- role for Disney to cast. While Ursula was voiced -- iconically! -- by Pat Carroll in the animated film, the character was famously modeled on the drag queen Divine and that legacy should not be underplayed. Casting a gay man or a draq queen or a trans actor would be an incredible move by Disney -- Harvey Fierstein recently played Ursula at The Hollywood Bowl -- although I can see them going with a bigger name for the star power. I think Lady Gaga is the rumored favorite, but Rebel Wilson also slayed at the Hollywood Bowl. Maybe NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour team would be happy if Billy Porter was cast in this role? 

As for Eric...IDK. So long as it's not Henry Cavill, I think I'm okay. 

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Where Is Skanland? -- Aladdin's "Controversial" Prince Anders Role Revealed

As I sit here, waiting for a band of thunderstorms to roll in and listening to the Aladdin score (whatever else you want to say about the live-action Aladdin, you cannot deny the talent of Alan Menken) -- I want to revisit something I blogged about a year and a half ago:

This Guy:

This is Billy Magnussen, a.k.a. Prince Anders in the new live-action version who, as many people have pointed out, does not exist in the animated version.

Back in September 2017, I wrote about my thoughts on this, which are complicated given my privilege.

For the record, I was almost exactly spot-on about Magnussen's role:

"FWIW, and this is probably a best case scenario, I hope Magnussen is playing the role of Prince Achmed from the animated film -- the prince who looks disdainfully at the people of Agrabah and who Jasmine (and Rajah) promptly rejects when he tries to impress her with all his wealth and status.
Maybe the Sultan is so desperate to see Jasmine married that he tries to arrange a marriage with her fairy-tale style -- you know, how in the fairy tales the King always says "whoever can complete task X can marry my daughter" and princes come from far and wide to try and win the princess, but in the end, it's the miller's son, or the stable boy who succeeds and rises up. (Which is, essentially, the story of Aladdin.) So maybe Prince Anders is either invited by the Sultan or hears of the stubborn princess and travels from Scandinavia to try his luck. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, he's arrogant and entitled and elitist and looks down on our hero and the hungry children of Agrabah. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, Jasmine puts him in his place and rejects him. Maybe there's a subtle commentary on the white savior narrative and this casting/narrative will flip it."

If you've seen the film, you'll know that's pretty close. Prince Anders does replace Prince Achmed, but it plays out pretty much the same.

Except.

Where in the 1992 animated film Prince Achmed was pompous, arrogant, disdainful, and even cruel -- Prince Anders is...kind of a buffoon? He's pretty -- and it's a genuinely strong moment when Jasmine comments on his beauty (he's just complimented hers) and he says something like, "I know right? But no one ever mentions it!" And Jasmine, being the strong, take-no-BS-feminist that she is retorts with, "Isn't it strange that we have the same title [prince/princess], but people talk about us so differently?" (Something like that -- I don't remember the exact wording.)

And poor Prince Anders -- you can see he doesn't quite get what she means. And you just want to ruffle his hair and pat his head, because he's not very bright.

So, yes. Jasmine does put him in his place and does reject him -- and that's about it. There's no significant change to the plot. Which does lend support to the idea that it wasn't necessary to cast a white man in the role.

I do think there's lost potential here -- I think Ritchie & Co. could have implemented the subtle commentary about the white savior narrative, thereby validating the decision to change Achmed to Anders. And this connects back to one of my other quibbles with the film -- the identity of Jasmine's mother. Or, at least, where her mother comes from. (This was alluded to in interviews, but is never explicitly dealt with in the text of the film.)

One of the minor-plot points of the film is that Jafar wants to control the Sultan/become a Sultan because, like every Super Evil Bad Guy evar, he's bent on world domination. He wants to turn Agrabah into an empire, not just a prosperous city. To do that, he needs to invade [insert fictional name of country where Jasmine's mother is from]. Jafar also indicates that Skanland -- Prince Ander's fictional country -- could be a strong military/political ally.

Sure. They're fictional countries, so why not.

I'm just saying: there could have been a 30-second addition to the scene where Jafar is trying to mind-meld the Sultan with a map that shows where each of the countries are located. The country where Jasmine's mother is from could look vaguely like India (as I suspect it's supposed to be) and Skanland could be...IDK, near Arendelle or something? This would fit with the military strategy the Sultan is supposed to be reviewing and could neatly tie these loose ends together. (Maybe the countries are on the map when Jasmine is trying to find Ababwa, but I was distracted by the Fantasyland easter egg. I'd have to rewatch to verify.)

Giving Skanland a strategic military value -- paired with the obvious buffoonery of Magnussen's Anders -- would be enough to flip the white savior narrative: Look at this idiot who thinks he's coming to save the day but is really just being used and manipulated by an evil vizier. The potential was there--it just wasn't actualized.

Let's get this together before you deal with The Little Mermaid, Disney. You've got LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA working on this with you. Don't screw it up.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

Disney's Live-Action Remake: Ursula Should Not HAVE To be Thicc

Yesterday, when I was scrolling through Facebook, I came across this article:


TBH, I felt really old because I didn't know who Lizzo is and I totally had to Google her.

Okay, Disclaimer before I go any further: I am not opposed to Lizzo playing Ursula; this article just reminded me of another one I read a few weeks ago:



Now, this...this I have thoughts on. Lots of thoughts.

First: y'all know my love for The Little Mermaid runs deep, no matter how many critics -- and celebrities (I'm looking at you, Kiera Knightley) -- point out how problematic it is. (I'm more in-line with the authors of this article from Time.)
Second: y'all know I'm super excited about the live-action remake -- especially because it means Lin-Manuel Miranda is teaming up with Alan Menken and if that isn't a match made in a Disney fan's Heaven, I don't know what is. (Plus, I'm hoping LMM will be nominated for an Oscar for ANYTHING he writes here and The Little Mermaid will be the film that makes him an EGOT winner.)
Third: I firmly believe Ursula is one of the -- if not THE -- best Disney villains and "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is my go-to car-karaoke-jam.

But.

I take issue with The Mary Sue's post caption, and the article doesn't do much to assuage me. Chelsea Steiner's writing in response to the rumors -- emphasis on rumors -- that Lady Gaga might play Ursula in the live-action adaptation. Here's her argument:
"Sea witch, please: Ursula is a fat girl icon. In an animated world populated with slender princesses, Ursula has stood out not only as a legendary Disney villain, but as an unlikely role model for body positivity. Ursula is confident, clever, and able to run a successful business helping poor unfortunate merfolk solve their problems. 
Ursula makes being bad look like a total blast, which is a shocking rarity for plus-size women in popular culture, who are too frequently portrayed as the butt of the joke. Ursula is not a dowdy shrew, nor is she a desperate wannabe seeking approval from King Triton and the rest of Atlantica. She marches to beat of her own drum fish, no matter how unpopular it may be. 
Over the years, Ursula has become an unlikely icon for the LGBTQ+ community as well. It’s well known that the character was based on John Waters’ muse, the outlandish drag queen Divine, and was brought to life by the music of gay lyricist Howard Ashman."
To Steiner's credit, I kinda see her point. I do agree that she's become an "icon for the LGBTQ+ community" -- the character's connection to Divine and Ashman have been solidified over the years, and it's a piece of Disney Trivia that always blows my students' minds.
I also agree that Ursula "makes being bad look like a total blast," because I'm a sucker for a villain who enjoys being bad and doesn't have some broken-heart-backstory that "explains" her villainy.

But that's just the thing: Ursula IS a villain. Seeing her as running "a successful business" when she's actually manipulating merfolk, no matter how naive they may be, by preying on their weaknesses and insecurities because of some vendetta with Triton? That's a loose interpretation at best.

And, yes. Steiner's not wrong when she says that, "in an animated world populated with slender princesses, Ursula has stood out" -- but I don't think it's in a good way. There are so few plus-size characters in Disney at all -- only a handful come to mind. Russell from Up is one, as are Lilo and Nani from Lilo & Stitch and while Elasti-Girl is surprisingly hippy for an animated character -- as she should be! She's had three kids! -- she still has that impossibly tiny Disney waist. But narrow the parameters to princess movies? The only non-hourglass shaped females are older, benevolent females -- the Fairy Godmother from Cinderella; the Three Fairies from Sleeping Beauty; and Mrs. Potts from Beauty and the Beast.

And then there's Ursula. Her age is a little hard to pin-down, and even figuring out that she's a contemporary of Triton's isn't much of a help, since he's white-haired but surprisingly muscular. Plus, the guy's got a 16 year old daughter. But, like most-villains, she's probably middle-aged -- older than the teenage princesses but younger than the benevolent helper fairies.

So, here's my grief: when your most famous plus-size character is a villain -- when your only plus-size character is a villain -- that's not body positivity or empowering. That's problematic. There's a critic who, I think, says it more succinctly than I can. While I find Robert Trites' argument, as a whole, problematic in parts, I think she's accurate on the matter of Ursula's weight:
"The Disney-constructed conflict in The Little Mermaid is between an overweight, ugly woman and a doe-eyed heroine with a figure less realistic than a Barbie doll's. Once Ursula transforms herself into a rival love-interest for the prince, the conflict is between a dark-haired anorexic and a fairer one. The stereotyping of evil as dark and good as fair is traditional, but only recently has Disney associated corpulence with evil. Disney's villainesses before the 1970s look predatory because they are so thin...In the 1970s, Disney begins to reflect the cultural emphasis on weight consciousness.[...] The movie's portrayal of good as fairer and thinner than evil presents a bigoted distortion of the human body."
Because when Trites brings up Vanessa -- the "dark-haired anorexic"; this is the late 1980s, the era of heroin chic -- she makes a point about the dark vs. light aspect of her appearance, but neglects to consider a broader implication. This may be because Trites thinks Eric is "easily deceived by Ursula's disguising herself as the raven-headed ingenue who possesses the little mermaid's voice. Eric loves the imposter as he has loved the image in his mind: for her physical attributes and for nothing more" (148). To Trites, Eric dismisses Ariel once he hears Vanessa's sing--but Trites doesn't acknowledge the role magic plays here. Eric, with the magic smoke seeping into his eyes, is clearly enchanted by Ursula-as-Vanessa, as evidenced by his robotic behavior in front of Grimsby when he announces the marriage.



To me, here's the crux: if Ursula was really a body-positive character, why would she voluntarily choose to look like a "raven-headed ingenue"? After all, Eric is enchanted and she has Ariel's voice: it shouldn't matter what she looks like since she can simply enchant them to focus on her voice. Taking human form is a necessity, obviously, but the shape of that human form is important:


She chooses to slim waaay down -- when given the choice, she chooses not only a slimmer figure, but a thin figure. She is just as thin as Ariel, retaining nothing of her previously curvy, fuller-figured size. If she was truly a body-positive character, comfortable in her own skin and size, then that would translate to her human form, her victory ensured as it is through magic.

So, no. I can't get behind this #KeepUrsulaThicc movement. I'm sure Lizzo would do a great job -- as Rebel Wilson before her as done. Hell, I'd even support Titus Burgess in the role, although I don't think Disney would go that way for a variety of reasons. But you know what? I think Lady Gaga would kill it, too.

Because I don't think Ursula has to be "thicc" to be great -- not when a real-life person would be portraying her. I would much rather see a #MakeArielThicc movement start, as I think the body-positive movement would be impacted so much more significantly by a plus-size princess than a plus-size villain.
  

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

More Updates on the Live-Action Lady and the Tramp

Apparently, there's a lot more news about this live-action Lady and the Tramp than I realized.

Let's break it down:

1. Justin Theroux will be the voice of Tramp.

 TBH, I don't have a lot of thoughts on this casting choice. It seems odd to me, but not an interesting way...more of a "meh-shrug-your-shoulders-and-move-on" kind of way. I don't know if I expected more star power (my husband literally said, "Who?" when I shared this with him) or a more dynamic personality...Meh.

2. Ashley Jensen will be the voice of Jackie:

📷: ComingSoon
To me, this is more interesting news because (1) Jensen is actually Scottish (Bill Thompson who voiced Jock in the original animated film was not), so good move there, Disney; (2) we're gender-flipping the character (Jock was originally male) which...not to say that women can't have male friends, but I always thought it was odd that Lady had no female friends*; and (3) I've been a fan of Ashley Jensen since her Ugly Betty and Extras days, so I approve of this.

3. Kiersey Clemmons will be Darling and Thomas Mann will be Jim Dear.

Okay. I didn't actually know who either of these actors were -- and browsing their IMDB page didn't really help -- but, FWIW, it's interesting to note that Disney will be portraying an interracial relationship (which, unfortunately, is still a big deal for the media giant). That is, of course, if only the animals are CGI.

4. The most interesting bit of news from this People article, though, is how the film will be released: it won't be released in theaters, but rather directly through Disney's unnamed streaming service. (Which is, temporarily at least, known as Disney Play, thanks to an off-hand comment from Iger.) What this means, though, is less clear. Historically, films that weren't released in theaters were straight-to-DVD releases -- see, for instance, Cinderella 2 or any of the multitude of sequels -- and were generally considered inferior (re: not box office successes). A tricky appellation, and something of a misnomer. While, yes, the animation is generally inferior (more time, effort, and skill is placed into the films that can earn the most revenue -- usually: this didn't really work with Pocahontas and The Lion King) the story sometimes isn't. Since these films aren't subject to as much scrutiny -- their intended audience is much smaller -- their stories can be a little more progressive and their characters are little more dynamic. (My favorite example of this is probably the Tinkerbell movies which boast amazing voice actors and Tink is a girl in STEM! She's a "tinker," an engineer.)

But the viewing landscape has changed: this year's Emmy nominations fascinatingly (but not shockingly) favored non-cable networks, with the exception of NBC's This is Us and ABC's Blackish. Companies like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu and HBO are generating outstanding original content, so why shouldn't Disney follow suit? We know their storytelling and movie-making is, arguably, in a class of its own, so their own streaming platform to house that content could be a bold move.

Could be. Will the content suffer? Will people pay to see it -- especially once Disney's catalog is gone from places like Netflix? (I mean, I will, but I'm a weird Disney fanatic.)

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Live-Action Update: Lady and the Tramp

In honor of classes starting back up in a week (well, less than a week, but let's round up so I don't freak out), I figured I should start blogging again.

So, I'm gonna ease back in with some news/updates that legit took me by surprise:

Tessa Thompson has been cast as the voice of Lady in the live action Lady and the Tramp

📷: The Independent
Let me clarify.

I 100% approve of this casting choice. I love Tessa Thompson: she's having a moment now -- what with Westworld, Thor: Ragnarok (is she alive in the MCU?! Did Thanos get her?!) and the new Men in Black, but I know her from her Veronica Mars days so.... -- I have faith that she knows a good thing when she sees it. Plus, the "original" (re: animated) Lady was voiced by Barbara Luddy a.k.a. Merrywether from Sleeping Beauty (<--that legit blew my mind, TBH) and, I don't know...I always liked that Lady's and Merrywether's voices were...I don't want to say "deeper" or "huskier," because the connotation there isn't what I'm going for, but their voices have a different pitch than, say, Aurora or Snow White. Their voices seemed unnaturally sweet and feminine, implying a preternatural innate daintiness that just seemed...unattainable? Unrealistic? All of the above? Both Merrywether and Lady are good-natured, to be sure, but they have a bite to them that I think Tessa Thompson will capture well. Well, for Lady at least. 

But...Lady and the Tramp live-action? 

IDK. I'm sure I knew this film was in the works, but honestly? Disney announced a live-action adaptation of basically everything they've ever made. And the 90's Renaissance remakes (The Lion King, Mulan, Aladdin) are kinda taking up the newsfeed right now. There's even been a fair amount of info on the Dumbo remake. Plus, I'm still waiting for updates on The Little Mermaid (which y'all know is my fave) with Lin-Manuel Miranda so...I kinda forgot about Lady and the Tramp.

Whoops. 

I love the film -- despite it's problematic parts (Si and Am, anyone?) -- and Tony's Town Square restaurant is one of my favorite places to eat in Magic Kingdom. I mean, who doesn't love Italian? (But, really. For the longest time, it was kinda one of the only sit-down, table-service (re: not a buffet) restaurants in MK.) And dogs? And dogs sharing a bowl of spaghetti?! LOVE. 

But, much like The Jungle Book adaptation (and, TBH, The Lion King), I remain skeptical (and cautiously optimistic!) about "live-action" adaptations starring CGI animals.

We'll see. 

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Maleficent 2 + Michelle Pfeiffer

So...I came across this headline this evening:

via Variety
And I'm just a little confused. 

All of this is really vague at the moment -- and it's not even official yet -- but the casting news is that Michelle Pfeiffer will be "the queen" in Maleficent 2

What queen? 

I don't really remember Maleficent that well -- it's not my favorite, since they gave a badass villain a hell-hath-no-fury backstory -- but I'm pretty sure that the movie ends with Aurora/Elle Fanning being crowned queen. (I think this means her mother dies...? I'm not sure, but it's Disney, so it's a safe bet to assume they axed the mother.)

So Michelle Pfeiffer won't be her mother/*that* queen, which begs the question: which queen will she be playing?

My first thought is that she'll be some sort of Evil Queen. Which...

via GIPHY

Really? Again, Disney? Female conflict? I guess they could spin it as "empowered females" rather than the same old patriarchal monarchy but...pitting females against each other rarely ends well. [Don't even get me started on this Mulan casting news...but more about that later.]

My second thought -- and they're not mutually exclusive -- was that maybe Pfeiffer could be playing Sleeping Beauty's mother-in-law. In the original story -- the "second" part that didn't get adapted in 1959 -- Sleeping Beauty and the Prince get married, and the prince takes her home to meet his parents. But, in a weird twist, his mother is actually a cannibalistic ogress who sends Sleeping Beauty away so she can eat her grand babies (and then Sleeping Beauty). [Because, oh yeah, Sleeping Beauty got pregnant and had two children by him. In some versions of the story -- the Italian version, I think -- the children were conceived before the spell was broken (i.e. rape) and Sleeping Beauty wakes up during labor. Not the best story for consent. One of my favorite things to discuss with students is how True Love's Kiss is basically Disney's invention -- it's not in the original fairy tales: Snow White wakes up because the apple is jolted out of her throat by a clumsy footman and Sleeping Beauty wakes up because the 100 Year Timer goes off.]

So, yeah. It's probably not going to happen because this cannibalistic ogress are like the most un-Disney thing ever, but then Maleficent is essentially raped in the first movie, so I guess it's possible?

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Disney Announces Official Live-Action Lion King Cast

Woke up this morning to find this story blowing up on my social media feeds:


A post shared by Walt Disney Studios (@disneystudios) on

I mean...first and foremost, this confirms that Beyonce will be the voice of Nala -- which, you just know she's going to slay that part of "Can You Feel The Love Tonight." (Sidebar: Can Donald Glover sing? I would think so...) I also wonder if this means they'll be bringing in some of the songs from the Broadway version, where Nala (and Scar, and Sarabi) have more of a singing presence since, you know, it's a musical. (Sidebar #2: Can Chiwetel Eijofor sing? I would think so and really hope so, because "Be Prepared" is one of my top 2 favorite Disney villain songs and he needs to bring it. Also, if this isn't a musical, and that song is cut, my heart will break.)

BUT.

What I find most interesting is the addition of Keegan-Michael Key and Eric Andre in the roles of Kamari and Azizi, respectively. On the pic above, they're paired with Florence Kasumba (who's German, interestingly enough), who is the voice of Shenzi.  Since "Shenzi" was the name of the hyena voiced by Whoopi Goldberg in the animated version, logic would dictate that Key and Andre are voicing the other two hyenas -- Banzai and Ed in the animated version.

I'm curious as to why Disney changed their names -- not that they were really well-known names. Perhaps to distance them from the animated version? Banzai in the animated version was voiced by Cheech Marin, and Ed was...well, Ed was problematic as the only animal character who didn't speak and who came off a little mentally handicapped. But I think it's interesting that all 3 hyenas will be voiced by black actors, and wonder what their "accents" will be, if they have any. After all, one of the big criticisms that scholars have against The Lion King is that the hyenas were voiced by minority actors and, they claim, had "urban accents" (essentially saying they sounded like they were, stereotypically, from the ghetto). To those critics, this was especially problematic as the hyenas were viewed as outside the circle of life and brought destruction to the Pridelands when they arrived. Critics read this as racist and classist on Disney's part -- and if you read the film against the backdrop of the LA Riots in the early 1990s, you might agree. (For a non-academic take on the hyenas, this is a pretty good read.)

I'm not entirely sure I do agree, but the name changes and casting choices are interesting, to say the least.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Happier Aladdin News -- Will Smith Shares Cast Photo

Amidst all the brouhaha over Billy Magnussen's casting, here's a bit of pixie-dusted news for you:

Will Smith has shared the "first cast photo" for the Aladdin remake:

Awww, don't they look happy?! I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about (1) this remake in general or (2) Will Smith as Genie (RIP, Robin Williams), but of course I'll give it a fair chance. 

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Is Disney "White-washing" Aladdin?

It always feels slightly awkward to comment on issues of whitewashing, given that I fully recognize my white privilege. But, Magnussen's casting in the live-action adaptation of Aladdin has created quite the storm of publicity for Disney...and I think it's at least worth pointing out. (Because Disney is so entrenched in pop culture.)

Before we start: I've said before that I am not looking forward to this adaptation. I'm not a fan of Guy Ritchie or his directorial style and, as other people have pointed out, I'm not quite sure why Ritchie seems to be going "off-book" when the other Disney live-action adaptations have essentially been the animated movie with real people. (Cinderella was basically the 1950 film, with fleshed out characters and some modern updates to fix some of the more problematic things with gender roles; Beauty and the Beast was essentially the same; and The Jungle Book was actually probably closer to the original Kipling tale, while still retaining the essence of the animated film. And The Lion King seems to be headed in a similar direction -- Jon Favreau even brought back James Earl Jones to voice Mufasa. Which...thank goodness. NO ONE ELSE could voice Mufasa.)

Also before we start: it's important to note that we still don't know who Magnussen is playing or anything about the character of "Prince Anders." At this point, I'm not sure what the justification is for inserting a white character into the story, so everything on the internet is just speculation and twitter-rage. But let's avoid another Mulan situation where everyone jumped to conclusions, assumed the worst, and started hashtag campaigns.

Both Teen Vogue and the Huffington Post have articles on the controversy, and they both include Tweets from the Internet Rage Machine with how upset people are over this. (I wonder if anyone on Twitter is *defending* the casting choice...) But I find some of the Tweets to be unfair, like this one:

I get what they're going for, but...I can't take it seriously.

So I'd recommend reading this piece from The Mary Sue. Because even though my knee-jerk reaction is to defend Disney and view this optimistically, they do make some good points:
"But it doesn’t really matter whether it was Disney, Ritchie, or some uptight studio exec who won’t acknowledge their own bias. What matters is that Aladdin was, before this news broke, going to be a film primarily starring people of color. It was going to be a film that would help the studio make a step in the right direction, and while the vast majority of the leading cast will still be sticking around, it’s disappointing to think that for whatever reason, they just couldn’t be trusted to lead a movie without a white character present."
A valid point -- that maybe Disney thinks a movie, even with Will Smith as the voice of the Genie (I won't touch the fact that Robin Williams will ALWAYS be the Genie for me), can't succeed without a white actor in it. For the record, I think it's still going to be a film "primarily starring people of color"; casting one Caucasian actor doesn't change that, just as casting Martin Freeman in Marvel's Black Panther doesn't change it for that film.

And, given that the original source material for Aladdin in A Thousand and One Nights was Chinese, this claim felt a little hollow to me:
"...couldn’t even let one movie go by without feeling compelled to re-write an old folk-tale-turned-animated-film."
(TBH, I'm not entirely sure I follow what it means: if it's criticizing the deviation from the animated film or from the original story.)

It also seems overly strong to liken Ritchie & Co. to "colonial white imperialists." I don't know why, but that really rubs me the wrong way...maybe it's, as I said above, my tendency to defend Disney or maybe it's the claim that Disney is inserting white people into a non-white history that bothers me, since this is a fictional story and Agrabah isn't a real place.

I understand the criticism, I do. And I might eat crow for this later on, but I think it's a bit premature to vilify Disney without knowing the specifics. FWIW, and this is probably a best case scenario, I hope Magnussen is playing the role of Prince Achmed from the animated film -- the prince who looks disdainfully at the people of Agrabah and who Jasmine (and Rajah) promptly rejects when he tries to impress her with all his wealth and status.
Maybe the Sultan is so desperate to see Jasmine married that he tries to arrange a marriage with her fairy-tale style -- you know, how in the fairy tales the King always says "whoever can complete task X can marry my daughter" and princes come from far and wide to try and win the princess, but in the end, it's the miller's son, or the stable boy who succeeds and rises up. (Which is, essentially, the story of Aladdin.) So maybe Prince Anders is either invited by the Sultan or hears of the stubborn princess and travels from Scandinavia to try his luck. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, he's arrogant and entitled and elitist and looks down on our hero and the hungry children of Agrabah. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, Jasmine puts him in his place and rejects him. Maybe there's a subtle commentary on the white savior narrative and this casting/narrative will flip it.

Maybe not. Maybe I've got too much pixie dust and optimism and maybe casting Magnussen will be a huge disaster for the film.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Prince Anders Coming To Agrabah

Um, okay.


Fresh from the Hollywood Reporter -- Billy Magnussen has been cast as an "original character" (re: not in the 1992 animated film), Prince Anders. (And also that Nasim Pedrad will play Jasmine's handmaid...I always did think it odd that the only three people living in such a huge palace were the Sultan, Jasmine, and Jafar.) Which...is an odd bit of casting news. My first thought would be that he's one of the suitors who the Sultan brings in to try and impress Jasmine, but...yeah. Maybe that scene's being expanded/reworked?

IDK. Of all the live-action adaptations of my childhood Disney staples currently in the works, I am the least excited about Guy Ritchie's adaptation of Aladdin. (I am more excited about Tim Burton's Dumbo than this one.) Which is a shame, because this could have been such an opportunity for Disney to retell an iconic tell without, you know, whitewashing it. I know there was a lot of casting controversy (which may or may not be resolved), but maybe not having a white male as a director would have been a good idea? Also, I'm just not a fan of Guy Ritchie's style, so there's that.

Ugh.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Lion King Casting News!

New casting news for The Lion King "live-action" film: Alfre Woodard will voice Sarabi, Simba's mom, and John Kani will voice Rafiki. I'm a fan of Alfre Woodard -- she was fantastic in Luke Cage -- but I'm less familiar with John Kani. Although IMDB tells me they were both in Captain America: Civil War and it seems like Kani is involved with Black Panther, so Yay! Marvel?

📷: Entertainment Weekly 
Still no word on the voice of Scar, though!

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Review: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Confession: The Little Mermaid will always be my first Disney obsession, and Ariel will always be my favorite Disney princess, but I have no memory of seeing the movie. I have memories of my obsession, and wanting All The Happy Meal Toys, but not watching it.

I do, however, have a very strong, very vivid memory of seeing Beauty and the Beast in the theater. I remember watching the opening scene, as it zoomed in to the castle, and leaning over and asking my mom if we were at the right movie because the movie couldn't start this way. (Little Me didn't know about prologues and backstory.) She said something like, "of course we're at the right movie," because obviously not every movie was animated (but that's all I knew when I was 7). And I remember loving the fact that Belle read books, because even little Lisa was a total bookworm, and that she was a little different. Adult Me has been a little disenchanted with the movie, but I was so excited for this version. And, thankfully, I didn't have to wait too long to see it. (#godblessbabysittinggrandmas).

There's a very spoiler, full review below the cut, but, spoiler alert, I loved it. Accurate gif of me walking out of the theater yesterday afternoon:


Tuesday, March 14, 2017

My, What A Guy, That Gaston!

In a longer post I'm working on, about the revelation that LeFou is struggling with his sexuality, I make a comment about how this adaptation (more specifically, I think, how director Bill Condon) is letting the actors mold their characters and bring a certain depth to them that's lacking in the 1991 animated version (as well as in the original fairy tale -- which is, after all, to be expected, as fairy tales are allegorical stories so character depth and development isn't a thing).

I love the 1991 animated version -- specifically, I love the music -- but I've always been fairly open about it doesn't hold up too well under my adult-lens (not even my Disney scholar lens!). I mean, I've got questions:
Where is Belle's mom? Do the townspeople know about the Beast and the castle -- or, at least, the prince and the castle (a royal family seems a hard thing to NOT know about)? Where does Chip come from?! 

And, perhaps most relevant to this post -- why does everyone LOVE Gaston? I mean, the entire town basically does everything he says and hero-worships him. I get that in most Disney movies, he'd be the hero/love-interest. I get that, for the most part, he doesn't even really do anything evil. (FOR THE MOST PART. Yes, throwing an innocent man into an insane asylum just to blackmail his daughter into marrying you is pretty despicable. But really, the guy just wants to go kill an evil monster that did, admittedly, imprison two innocent people.) I get that he's supposed to be the pinnacle of hyper-masculinity: strong, athletic, good-looking, a pioneer in the field of interior decorating, single-handedly keeping egg-sellers in business...but.


But the guy's kinda of a jerk -- even to LeFou, his best friend. So why does everyone adore him?

Luckily, Entertainment Weekly recently interviewed Luke Evans, publishing an article titled, "Luke Evan's Backstory for Gaston is a Beauty" (pun intended, I'm assuming). AND you can read it online.
In a nutshell,
"Evans paints Gaston as a broken man devolving into monstrosity, transforming in counterpoint to the actual titular Beast’s evolution towards civility; more than this, the actor’s take on the burly villain comes loaded with a heavy history and more gravitas than one might expect of the one-dimensional (albeit six-abbed) antagonist."

The parallel in the two, male, main characters' journeys has always been apparent to people who look at the film with a critical eye -- the question has always been, "Who's the real beast?" But.
(More excerpts from the interview and my thoughts below the cut because, hi. I'm wordy and have lots of opinions.)


Sunday, February 19, 2017

JAMES EARL JONES WILL BE BACK AS MUFASA

And, yes. That required an all-caps title.

On Friday, director Jon Favreau (who also did this summer's live action The Jungle Book) tweeted out this big news:


Literally 25 minutes later, he tweeted out the following:

Now, I know Donald Glover is "having a moment": he's on the critically-acclaimed show Atlanta and he was just cast as "Young Lando Calrissian" in the new solo Han Solo movie.

But...I feel like news stories are really burying the lead:


Ummmm.

No.

The top headline for this story should absolutely be that "James Earl Jones WILL BE BACK as Mufasa." Because, honestly. Who else could be better than James Earl Jones?! 

This was actually one of the things I was majorly concerned about when they announced a live-action Lion King -- James Earl Jones created such an iconic character with an iconic presence, that it would be exceptionally difficult to top that -- so I'm glad to see that they're not even going to try. *phew*

Sidebar: I do think it's worth noting that Donald Glover, a black actor, will voice Simba -- as opposed to Matthew Broderick who voiced him in the animated film.
#diversitymatters #weneeddiverseanimatedfilms

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Ariana Grande + John Legend = Disney's New Celebrity Duet

Things I was not happy to learn about today:

Ariana Grande and John Legend are, most likely, doing the "celebrity duet version" of "Beauty and the Beast" for the new live-action film.

PC: Seventeen

Grrrr.

Okay. Here's the thing. Celebrity versions of iconic Disney songs are nothing new. While I think Demi Lovato's version of "Let It Go" was probably one of the only versions where the Disney-version actually did better (which...Idina Menzel. Yes.), there's usually a celebrity-version that soars to the top of the charts and gets a lot of radio airplay. Christina Aguilera did a version of "Reflection" for the Mulan soundtrack, (there was also a 98 Degrees song that played at the end of the film), Carrie Underwood recorded "Ever Ever After" for Enchanted, Vanessa Williams did a version of "Colors of the Wind" for Pocahontas, and, in the early '90s, apparently Peabo Bryson was the go-to guy for Disney.

I remember his version of "A Whole New World" with Regina Belle playing on the radio, and I definitely remember his version of "Beauty and the Beast" with Celine Dion. That was an "it" song of the early '90s:

Look at the '90s style!

Still. John Legend? I approve. And I'm sure that when Disney was thinking back on this version, they may have thought, "Wow! We had Celine Dion! A great 90's pop-star and total diva. Who's an equivalent now?" and yes, Ariana Grande is a logical, equivalent choice.

But...I don't know. She did a cover of "Zero to Hero" for the We Love Disney album and...maybe I'm just overly picky, but I was not impressed. I'm sure this is a minority opinion, but it was lacking something for me. Yes, it was technically perfect, and the choir in the back definitely helps with the soul, but it fell flat. There's some emotion missing, some deeper connection with the lyrics that makes me hesitant about tackling "Beauty and the Beast."

Friday, May 27, 2016

Tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme...


...Beauty and the Beast

The teaser trailer.

It's finally here.

I may or may not be having a fangirl freak-out moment over here.


I have been super excited about this adaptation -- and particularly the casting choices -- for awhile. I know that there was talk about Emma Watson playing Beauty in a Guillermo del Toro version (which would have been much darker, for sure), but when Stephen Chbosky (author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower and who worked with Emma Watson on the film adaptation of that book) signed on to write the screenplay, I got even more excited. 

Like most Disney projects, details of this one were kept tightly under wraps. While Luke Evans and Josh Gad were pretty active on social media (relatively speaking), the one thing that the Internet really wanted to see -- Emma Watson as Belle -- was the one thing we didn't get. 

Until now:


It's small, but it's something. (It's also the only shot we get of an actual character in the film.) My husband complained that the trailer didn't reveal much -- that he wanted "more" than just scenic shots and voice-overs. 

My response? "It's called a teaser trailer for a reason." At which he astutely compared it to the teaser trailer for Cinderella, which was basically just a shoe and a butterfly, so at least we got a little more. But not nearly enough. :) 

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Disney Working on Mary Poppins Sequel (Of Sorts)

The news that Disney is basically remaking every one of it's animated classics into a live-action film isn't new.

What is new is reports that they're pursuing Emily Blunt for the role of Mary Poppins -- but not in a remake.

(c) Entertainment Weekly / Getty Images
The news comes from a Variety report and indicates that Rob Marshall (Chicago, Into The Woods) would direct. 

The most important information of the report -- at least to Disney/children's lit scholars/fans -- is this:
"Insiders confirm the new film will take place in Depression-era London 20 years after the first film and will take story lines from P.L. Travers’ children books focusing on Poppins’ continued adventures with the Banks family."
First--it  does confirm the reports that this would not be a remake of the 1964 live-action/animated film starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. (In other words, Emily Blunt would not be replacing Julie Andrews, but rather stepping into her (albeit rather large) shoes.)

This is key, I think, namely because Julie Andrews is so beloved, and this was an iconic role for her.

What's interesting though is the decision to fast-forward 20 years. Jane and Michael will have (presumably) grown up at this point, so I'm assuming that perhaps Mary Poppins will come to deal with their children, the next generation. (Although Jane and Michael would have had to get married rather early in life to have children the same age they were when Mary visited them...but details.)

I'm also curious to see whether Emily-Blunt-as-Mary-Poppins will be more faithful to Travers' original vision of Mary. While Disney romanticized the relationship between Travers and Walt in the film Saving Mr. Banks, the true account is much more...contentious. Travers and Walt fought over almost every aspect of the film, and she left the premiere in tears. (Which apparently led to her reluctance to give the rights for the Broadway musical, but that Mary is much more in line with the literary version: sterner, less "spoonful of sugar.")

Of course, all speculation at the moment, since nothing is set in stone, but interesting nonetheless.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Emma Stone To Play Cruella DeVil?

In the grand tradition of milking things for all that they're worth, you may have realized that Disney is releasing a spate of live-action adaptations of, or inspired by, its classic films -- most notably Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson as Belle and The Jungle Book with its all-star, CGI cast.

The relative successes of Maleficent (giving villains a backstory) and Cinderella (essentially retelling the classic animated story in live-action) are, I suppose, at the heart of this: if those films had flopped, Disney probably wouldn't be so eager to spend money on the 15 or so live-action films currently in talks or production.

One of the most curious of these ("The Most Curious" HAS to go to the Chernabog movie -- and if you're asking "who?" I don't think it's unreasonable. Chernabog is, after all, the villain from Disney's Fantasia -- an unlikely movie and character on which to base a live-action film) is the live-action movie about Cruella DeVil. A memorable antagonist from a beloved Disney film, to be sure. But worthy of her own movie?

I remain skeptical.

After all, part of what makes Disney villains so great (in my opinion; I know some Disney scholars take issue with their portrayal of female power and villainy) is that they're evil. Like, pure, unadulterated, unabashedly EVIL. They're bad, and they know. They're not conflicted over it. (Which is part of the reason I wasn't enamored with Maleficent: of all the Disney villains, she's just so evil and the Angelina Jolie movie tried to explain that away. It did so in a powerful way, to be sure, but still. Can't she just be evil?!)

Cruella DeVil though...there's the potential for a really great, complex psychological backstory there....after all, one of the complaints when she showed up on Once Upon A Time was that she's not a "magical villain." That is, Cruella doesn't wield or use magic: she's just a horrible, puppy-killing, fur-coat-wearing, real person. And slightly (okay, probably more than slightly) maniacal and deranged.

The animated Cruella, c.1961; Glenn Close in the 1996 live-action remake;
and Victoria Smurfit in Once Upon A Time, c. 2014

And now the latest news is that Emma Stone is being pursued by Disney to portray Cruella in the live-action remake:

Which...is interesting. The obvious comment is that Emma Stone is young, which implies that we're definitely getting a backstory, and that we might not never overlap with the events of 101 Dalmatians. (It's Disney, though, so who knows.) And Emma Stone could bring a delightful, sassy spark to the character...as well as the emotional depth that a truly "good" story might call for.

Verdict: If Emma Stone agrees, I've no doubt she'll do a fantastic job. My skepticism lies, I think, with the script/story and the fact that Cruella DeVil is getting her own movie in the first place.